It's not climate change that scares me, it's climate policy that scares the crap out of me.

I am a Historian...I KNOW from the historical record that every few centuries our planet goes through serious climate change cycles... and few died or were seriously effected by the change...when the sea level rose 20 feet, they just moved!!! From about 900AD uintil 1340AD there was a huge global warming event flooding coastal areas so people moved from Holland to England for example...Newfoundland had a warm climate seldom even had frost in the winter time... the Norse could sail the North Atlantic in open boats with no problem!!! The English grew better wine grapes than the french! Global Temps were several degrees warmer than today!!! The between 1340-1350 global temps plunged into an Ice Age, London's Thames river froze a couple feet thick ice for months in winter... it was not until the late 19th century that temps warmed up... This global warming hype is %95 POLITICAL so the crazy people can run our lives... Nothing bad happened during the last global warming and the same will happen this time! Ancient Egypt all of North Africa, the Sinai, Israel, was watered fertile and had large forests 2000 years ago! That is what the historians say!!! So stop being so silly delusional foolish!!!

I've been following Dr. Christy for 20 years and it's true, he is the voice of reason when it comes to climate. So glad that he's still in the game.

When you are coming out of an ice age, don't be surprised to see the temperature go up.

I repeat my experience, I read the Daily News Paper one morning as a 10 year old. The Headlines blared out the FACT that in 30 years, there would be NO Snow on the Victorian Alps (Australia) and mention of my home town would be underwater within that time frame. I was shaking with this news. This was over 70 years ago. There is no difference in sea levels, we have had one of the best Ski Seasons on our Alps this season, so I no longer believe "Chicken Little" and his statement "The Sky is falling". I double check everything I am told and look to see who gains from such information and what are the supporting facts. As far as removing ICE engines and replacing with EV's on this current information, these proponents are "Dreaming". Have they seen the long lines waiting to recharge your EV, can they see an EV Bulldozer to mine the Minerals for the Batteries, the fossil materials that go into the materials to build the vehicles. Yes, check ALL The Facts.

Thanks for letting him present his data. Science can change as we allow all at the table.

Excellent interview. I especially liked the question, "Is it okay to exaggerate the science to get people to do what we know is best for them?" Dr. Christy's response was very human and focused on the people who need access to cheap energy today to overcome poverty. But equally troubling is the erosion of trust in science. Science should not be a political tool used to manipulate the populace.

Many Thanks for this discussion with Dr Christy. Would love to see him and Dr William Happer in discussion with this level of respect. Cheers.

Dr. Christy is exactly right. He is measuring the data, It is not a model! Warming is about 1.5 °C per century! According to measured data.

A warmer climate actually DECREASES hurricanes. The temperature gradient between polar and equatorial regions is less steep with a warmer climate leading to less convective turbulence.

This is what we need, is more like this Dr Christy, level headed, intelligent and factual basing information on facts and not emotional personal egos and deviant thinking.

As a Forecaster, I have always felt that climate models were worthless as there is no verification. Great to hear John Christy is adding his voice and HARD work to the discussion!

Great interview. I find it interesting that no-one, on either side, seems to happily state that models are simply a mathematical expression of someone's opinion. These are often then used as solid evidence to back up the aforementioned opinion.

Congrats on one of the most fair minded q&a pieces I've seen on the topic. The avoidance of such a platform by the msm is a disgrace making your effort even more a breath of fresh air. One of the points I would make about potential downsides of ignoring empirical data and pursuing man-made climate doom fantasy is the waste of public monies. There are so many genuine problems in the world such as curing dreadful conditions like cancer, resolving pollution and environmental damage and helping solve 3rd world inequalities etc. Pouring trillions down the drain on a hypothesis that has failed the observations test is not only bad science but the worst kind of political opportunism.

"Well, first of all, I don't have a Model. I have hard data."

Sometimes adults need to explain things to children with loving kindness

I feel sorry for Dr Christy sometimes. Seems like he has to repeat the same message over and over again and it's just ignored. He's been saying these kinds of things since he was working on the IPCC reports himself in the late 90s early 2000s.

Look at that! An actual expert using actual empirical data who says that we don't need to panic and that renewables are not the way to go.

The job of science is to discover the truth, not to lie because it fits a politician or activist’s political agenda.

Loved this interview! I've been lately getting very anxious and overwhelmed with all these banner like statements about irreversible climate change and the inevitable extinction of humanity and what not! This is such a breath of fresh air! Thank you for arranging this interview and helping not just me, but many young people who are more and more likely to get depressed ❤

Many scientists agree that the CO2 greenhouse effect is at the saturation point -meaning a further rise to CO2 levels will not increase the greenhouse effect, because CO2 is now at its maximum level and cannot "get worse." Additionally, more CO2 means MORE oxygen and food plants produce and the greener the world gets. It's important to note that water in the atmosphere (clouds) produce 85-90 percent to the "greenhouse effect" and no one (hopefully) is suggesting getting rid of the water (clouds) in the atmosphere.

CO2 has very little effect demonstrably. Global temps have not been increasing in lockstep with CO2 rise.

A continued voice of reason in a world of frantic alarmism.

What a very measured interview. Mr Christy is the kind of scientist we need more of. The belief in computor model predictions that fly in the face of measured data is very disturbing. Remember the computers that predicted a missile attack decades ago and fortunately a realistic man in charge of the warning system ignored it and fortunately we are still here!

People forget that the Vikings called Greenland Greenland because when they settled there 900 years ago it had lush green grass. By 1350 they were forced to abandon Greenland because it was engulfed in snow and ice.

Great interview. The common sense that you won't find in mass media.

Thank you for speaking up DR. Christy.

Dr John Christy is one of the few climatologists worth listening to. I understand that the interviewer has to play the devils advocate, but he seems a tad disappointed to be pulled back to reality. Nonetheless, a fair interview. Pity it was so short, since this is a vitality important subject because the 'free world' is shooting itself in the foot. Civilisation, as we know it, depends on having ample and affordable energy. As John Christy says, we should be building Nuclear plant, particularly those 4th generation solutions that aim to consume spent nuclear fuel and waste.

Important points: 10:04 and 11:15. Christie does NOT have a model. He has data. To frame the "debate" as opposing "models" is mistaken. There are data sets that can be used to test various hypotheses.

I'm a big fan of John Christy as a balanced honest scientist.

"Shouldn't we continue to worsen people's lives even if there is no reason for it? Maybe we can even make up some other reason."

Co2 is virtually saturated at current levels.Max Planck and Carl Schwarzshield showed a hundred years ago that Co2 absorption and radiation can be calculated on a logarithmic scale.We’re at 420ppm Co2,since it’s virtually saturated at current levels,concentration of Co2 will need to double,840 ppm to increase temperatures by 1C.

we should fear a cooling not a warming, that's a basic argument, very basic indeed

Our current co2 level is 400+ppm. During the Cambrian Age when life exploded on Earth, the co2 level was at 7000ppm. It was at 4000ppm during an ice age (not warm!). As animals used the co2 to create shells and bones and then died - becoming limestone and fossils - the co2 level in the atmosphere continued to decline. One million years ago, Earth was at 180ppm, only 30ppm above extinction! That's when a creature with a weak stomach, no fur, and a brain big enough to make fire (not easy!) and build with limestone began to fill that ecological niche of releasing bound up co2. Like bees’ role is to pollinate, humanity's role in nature is to recycle bound up co2 back into the atmosphere. Thank goodness for humans! Professional greenhouses pump co2 levels to over 1000ppm cause that's where plants thrive. Our current atmospheric level of 400+ppm is way too low. Zero emissions is suicidal for the whole planet.

Finally, someone pointed out what I’ve been saying for 40 years. When I was 16, my science teacher was telling us that the earth was entering “another Ice Age.” Because of air pollution, we were all going to freeze to death in 20 years, when the earth entered an Ice Age. Fast forward 20 years, and they were talking about a “Greenhouse Effect,” a global warming phenomenon that would result in the earth becoming uninhabitable 20 years hence. Didn’t happen. Christy also points out a well-known fact we learned in grammar school, that plants love C02, that we exhale it, and they absorb it. We need plants, and they need us. It makes perfect sense. The earth goes through 20-year cycles of heating and cooling, and it has naught to do with human behavior or fossil fuels.

Dr. Christy make a great argument.

This is what can happen when the two sides of the issue can talk it out instead of name calling and cancelling.

One thing that really bothers me is that nobody mentions that the base line the alarmists are using for the warming is the little ice age they don't tell people how warm it was in the late medieval times there was a lot less sea ice in the north Atlantic and the vikings were farming in Greenland where the ground is frozen year around now please explain that

I'm surprised to find that someone is still at the bargaining stage. I'm so glad that there are so many commenters who laud the concept of letting all be heard.

Thank you Dr Christy for living in the real world. May God give you strength

Excellent interview... really enjoyed the fact that neither one is trying to push a narrative, they are only reasoning the facts and the available research.

I'd like to see a cost benefit analysis on expected warming and mitigation costs. Then I would like someone to be held accountable for these predictions directly back to the public

Listening to this was like a cool, fresh breath of air, not just because of one of the view voices that oppose the narrative that is pushed at as the absolute truth but also because of the inquisitive and at the same time extremely pleasant and civilized manner this interview was conducted.

Michael Mann and John Christy agree on nuclear power, what a great place to start a discussion. Forget climate change, think about the 3 billion people on this earth who either live with no electricity or live in energy poverty. These people will power themselves out of poverty this century with coal unless there is something just as reliable and cheaper. Both men can agree on the real consequences of coal pollution and if that can be avoided, it's a huge win, not just for the impoverished but everyone. Start there because advanced nuclear, like they are developing in Indonesia can provide that kind of energy cheaper than coal. An American company (Thorcon) has been working with the Indonesian government for years to bring this technology to the grid. Capital cost is less than a coal plant with a 2-year build cycle. Everyone wins regardless of which side of the climate issue you stand on.

Michael Mann's notorious 'hockey stick graph' started us down this slippery slope.

Yes! Finally a voice of reason! I have been saying to people for years, we shouldn’t be making policy based on hypothesis, but on fact. Global warming caused by man is a hypothesis. But fact is, for mankind to survive, we need clean air, clean water, and clean food.

Finally someone speaks with comman sense, smarts and knowledge instead of far-out theories.

Nice to see another voice of reason with knowledge and experience. I’ve really enjoyed listening to Dr. William Happer as well.

Well, YT, the United Nations is not right on the political positioning based on the real world. Great video love it the 🛰️'s !

A constant in nature is change. Climate changes. This is not shocking nor horrifying. Great video.

As a retired scientist who worked at a climate modeling lab, I estimate 1/2% of the warming is anthropocentric; the rest would be from other factors that would exist without the industrial revolution.

we need more like him, science by a scientist not a media type cherry picking data.

I've never seen this interviewer before, but I am in awe of Dr. Christy's ability to calmly answer these very leading questions. I almost lost it at 14:00 when he says "you admit that there's more CO2 and that could be bad." Yes, but it is most likely good. We are at geologically historic lows in CO2 concentrations. Remember that "saving the planet" is a luxury that only rich countries can afford.

This is simple they use the data that agrees with their theories and ignore the data that disputes what they claim

every greta fan should have to watch this.

I really appreciated this dialog and discussing both sides of an issue. Please keep this sort of inquiry up.

But the modelers won the Nobel Prize in physics lol

A rare balanced objective discussion we will never see on legacy media channels.

Finally , somebody who tells the truth..!!!!

Excellent Q & A.

I'm looking at a table showing most all temperatures record were set in the 1930's Dust Bowl time. Ever since it's on average getting colder. For example we burn about 30% more of renewable solar energy (stored in that firewood) to heat our homes in the last 20-30 years. Clearly it's getting colder. Most of the flora and fauna is in the tropics, clearly warm is good, cold is bad.

I would have liked to hear more about the actual satellite data as John is an expert on that.

I'm convinced that the most important aspect of the climate change debate is its use as a crisis to manipulate policy. When you suggest investment in clean energy sources that the billionaires aren't positioned to profit from, like nuclear, the conversation gets shut down or steered toward solar and wind, which the billionaires are positioned to profit from. Climate change also gets used to promote all sorts of crazy unrelated policy. We have all rested too long on our institutions, not noticing that they're being strongly influenced by narcissists and megalomaniacs. We need to remove them from the influence and decision making trees before we can accurately assess this problem and form a reasonable solution.

True Academic Of Science I want More Institution In the world

Members of Mann's email group debunked the hockey-stick graph alluded to by the host. It has been withdrawn I believe but it served its purpose.

Greedy corporations and politicians looking for ways to enrich themselves is more worrisome. The Green Machine is very lucrative.

This interviewer does his very best to stay calm. But he also realizes that he’s out of his league on climate. I applaud this scientist on his true dedication to science. The climate history on the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature is actually a negative correlation. This disproves all man made climate change theories. It’s that simple.

One thing I wish John Christy had pointed out is the difference between his data set - true global temperature measurement via satellite - and terrestrial temperature measurement via ground-based thermometers, which are mostly land based and mostly concentrated in north America and Europe. In the 1980's there was a drastic reduction in the total number of ground-based weather stations which affected the terrestrial trend, not to mention the terrestrial measurements susceptibility to the "urban heat island" and other effects. If you compare the temperature trends from the terrestrial records versus the satellite trends you will find the terrestrial record shows a much greater trend upwards than does Christy's satellite dataset. Christy's data has also been checked against the weather balloon dataset and they compare very well. The terrestrial data, on the other hand, is a mess, but people still use it to frighten the bejeepers out people. I prefer Christy's dataset because it's truly global (terrestrial, marine and polar) versus a few thousand terrestrial weather stations, mostly urban now, and not a true global sample. People are panicking over the bad terrestrial data, I think. Funny thing: years ago I read the IPCC AR4 technical report. There is a page where there is a box wherein it says there was a pause in warming for 16 (?) years and there was no consensus on the cause of the "pause". The "summary for policy makers" said the exact opposite. Go figure.

Fantastic interview - about time coverage was given to a true scientist

This man makes sense. Follow the data. Test your theories. Absolute sense. Just like Happer.

Interesting how there is never any mention of the sun's effect on global temperatures and instead focus solely on carbon emissions!

a BIG THANK YOU for your honesty and sanity and REAL SCIENCE

Wow. This is an area of study for me and it finally popped up on my feed. Great interview. I wish you would have gotten more granular though. Thank you.

In his address to Congress in 1985, Carl Sagan proposed fission and fusion to help mitigate carbon emissions. Also, Sagan encouraged sound policy and solutions that would bot break the economy!

It’s interesting that every time somebody posts a video where people on opposite sides of a debate can sit down and rationally discuss things it gets rave reviews. The public is dying for true debate. Why can’t the MSM figure that out?

"I don't depend on models, I depend on facts." Christy When there is a hurricane 300 to 400 miles off the east coast, I will see, on the news, 25 to 30 different "models" and EVERY ONE is showing a different direction.

There can be some really bad environmental fallout from some of the ' clean' energy. Renewables may not be all that renewable. I think a mixture of energy and reducing through technology the emissions from use of fossil fuel or improving the efficiency of fossil fuel use, I think that's a better approach

While I am very happy with the information provided by John Christy, I'm more impressed with the nuanced questions asked by Professor Macosko. Great video. Should be 'required reading' by EVERYONE concerned with the issues. Kudos!!

It is very confusing, one scientist tells us we are getting warmer and another tells us a different story. Who do we believe.? I live in the Netherlands, a relatively cold country and I have a couple of fig trees in my garden, as do several of my neighbours. For a number of years we have enjoyed a good harvest of figs. However these past two years the produce has been numerous but alas they never grew as big as a golf ball, nor did they ripen. It would appear that the past two summers were not warm enough here in Holland to ripen this delicious fruit. Do these trees know something that we don’t?

I would recommend you read or view information from Will Happer (Princeton University), Richard Lindzen (MIT), Judith Curry (Georgia Tech), John Christy (UAH), Steve Koonin (Cal Tech), Bjorn Lomborg (Hoover Institute), Michael Shellenberger (Environmental Progress), Patrick Moore (Greenpeace co-founder), Roy Spencer (NASA). Their perspectives will open many eyes to what's really happening with climate, not what you see in 60 second blurbs on CNN. Unfortunately most people don't want to invest the time to actually understand this important subject.

I know the moderator is trying to be "devil's advocate" as he indicates a few times, but this summary by Dr. Christy explains in part why our world is in the bad shape it is in... especially this part: "first of all i don't have a model these are real data that we're talking" As a Data Analyst, I would prefer to use read data too... Also, there is a lack of compassion for those in Africa - as I lived there too. The Paris accord should not be adjusted - one for developed/developing, it should be scrapped. Wind farms are also not advisable to be added in Washington state. I have 3 friends working on Power Systems as PhD's in Canada and you won't believe how costly it will be to basically run duplicate solar and wind along with backup. You are welcome to read this part of the transcript: 10:33 "um now i mean in a scenario that you 10:36 just described i could kind of imagine 10:38 okay we'll make a new paris accord that 10:41 says 10:41 if you're in a developing country you 10:43 can still burn you know 10:45 fossil fuel if you're in a more modern 10:47 country 10:48 you have to just do solar and wind and 10:51 nuclear and all these other things 10:52 because 10:54 even though one guy's model you know 10:56 john christie's model says it's not a 10:58 big deal we got to be 10:59 careful we know that there's more 11:01 greenhouse gases we know there's more 11:02 co2 11:03 you agree that there's more that might 11:05 be bad that might be really bad and even 11:07 if his models don't show 11:08 we can't just trust that we got to be 11:10 careful here so would that be 11:12 a good strategy would you support that 11:14 kind of a strategy 11:15 well first of all i don't have a model 11:17 these are real data that we're talking 11:19 about that i'm talking about 11:20 real data that disproves that that 11:23 invalidates 11:24 basically what models are showing so to 11:26 separate that 11:27 and another thing is that you know we 11:29 can pass all kinds of regulations at the 11:31 united nations level or this level 11:34 but the impoverished world is going to 11:37 do what it's going to do"

Correction - the 0.05 degC is per *decade* not century, which is the rate that has been occurring for a long time.

Full credit to the host for treading VERY carefully and not allowing anyone to come to the conclusion he might have questions about the consensus and therefore be subject to ostracization, ridicule, and possible termination. It is very dangerous to allow people to think you might listen to other perspectives or even have questions.

Why hasn’t this channel got millions of subscribers?

The new NOAA study may shoot holes in the climate change debate. If cleaner air causes ocean surfaces to increase in temperature then it reasons that land temperatures will be impacted also. The sum effect will be that atmospheric temperatures will be increased. This is just a question not a statement of fact. But it is an interesting theory.

CO2 is a huge benefit to all mankind. To demonize CO2 is ridiculous if you follow the science. If you follow the "money" then you are credulous.

Excellent information, scientifically based, not emotional with just facts…please, sir, we’d like some more.

Yes I agree a very measured and thoughtful professor. I thought it was very telling with the comment that Dr. Michael Mann talks “TO” Dr. Christy… talking “WITH” shows one is receptive to new ideas and data… Which Dr. Mann is not. Dr. Christy talks with others. When Dr. Christy talks, I stop and listen!

Great explanations by Dr. Christy directly refuting the incredibly exaggerated claims by supposed climate scientists. Thank you Dr. Christy!

Ask a climate advocator what the flaw in their argument and the response is "absolutely nothing". Any scientist that says that should never be trusted to interpret and speak on experiments or models.

You have very good lighting. What equipment are you using? Thank you.

Really interesting to compare how the interviewer here takes a skeptical attitude towards Dr. Christy's point of view, versus a similar interview he did with Michael Mann where he softballs/takes him at his word throughout their talk.

Essential trace gas means no life without it.

Why is this not common knowledge? This is newsworthy, and should be in the curriculum of every school in the country. Tell Suzuki to fly his kite and stay out of the climate business. Along with that little girl in Sweden.

The best way to approach the climate crisis is to fully prosecute corrupt politicians, academics, and businessmen and punish them severely. This can be done with fair elections and by following the Bill Of Rights in the United States. The next best thing to do is to make energy as cheap as possible by eliminating regulations and taxes. The problem will then dissolve away into it's own nothingness.

I don't have a model I have actual climate data that refutes what the climate models are saying...👍💯✌️

why does this interviewer keep referring to Dr Mann as some kind of climate guru???certainly not my opinion

What is missing in all these really good concersations is the mention of CLOUD SEEDING and CHEMTRAILS. Hundreds of planes spraying metal nano particules each day ( I see it here over Lisbon, Portugal everyday). That is really influencing weather patterns. It is urgent to talk about this.

The hockey stick we are experiencing today could simply be the leading edge of a spike in temperature as has happened throughout history. After peaking at some point we are then likely to start dropping in temperature as we follow the trailing edge of the spike, and the temperatures drops.

All we have to do is look at the ocean levels in Miami, which is about 11 feet above sea level. The ocean has not gone up 1/16th of an inch.